That annual is truly an awful comic. I understand your decision-making, and I might have made the same choices if I was in your seat. But I like to pretend that comic never existed.

To be fair to Byrne, though, he had an impossible task. Peter David's shadow on that comic was so long, it wasn't until he got a second, shorter run on the book that the book finally felt "free" of his presence. Had Marvel tried to do Planet Hulk/World War Hulk (stories I very much life) in the same time span as Byrne's run, I don't think they would have worked simply because people were still sore about David's departure.

Posted by wishlish on 2007-07-06 18:22:11
I loved the fourth-wall-breaking stuff in Captain Marvel... it was one of the biggest draws for me. And that particular scene was great. So maybe not such a bad call after all.

Posted by Fetsur on 2007-07-06 18:50:46
Solid Writing
The material about Byrne is interesting. He’s been notorious for years among fans, at least, for his “Everything you know about (fill in the blank) is wrong” retcons, which were often accompanied by his “back to basics” philosophy regarding characterization. His approach to HULK was typical. I had an online (AOL) argument with him in the mid-90s about his WEST COAST AVENGERS retcon of the Vision’s origin, which went very well, since he couldn’t provide any solid basis for the retcon.

The problem I see with managing creators’ egos is that their abilities don’t necessarily match their egos. An editor should be able to dissect a plot outline within minutes, identify apparent conflicts with existing material, and assess the material’s structural strengths and weaknesses within a given amount of time. A writer who doesn’t have a background in literary criticism might not be able to do that, which would be to his detriment. If all he can do is come up with plot ideas that are derived from other comics stories, or simply recycle plot material--the greatest conceptual weakness of the Byrne-style retcon--then he won’t be able to discuss story material with the editor as an intellectual equal.

I thought the recent HELLSTORM miniseries was good work; Irvine had a good grasp of Hellstrom’s character, and the storyline was interesting, even with the juvenile joke about one of Osiris’s body parts. However I reacted to individual elements in the storyline, though, the structure was solid, and I’m sure Irvine could justify everything he wanted to do. I’d much rather see material from accomplished writers who have particular stories to tell about Marvel characters, whether or not the stories are in continuity, than stories derived purely from pop culture and/or other comics. The solidity of the resulting stories is very satisfying.

I might note that one of the considerations missed, when Byrne decided to retcon Wanda and the Vision, was that the two characters plus the kids had great potential for fantasy stories that could be done either as comics or as prose. The four of them, plus supporting characters, were as good as any other set of fantasy novel characters in the marketplace. One of the obvious gaps in Marvel’s character repertoire is anybody even approximating Harry Potter, or aimed at the juvenile fantasy market. Vizh, Wanda, and the kids could be used in stories for that market.

SRS


Posted by Steven R. Stahl on 2007-07-06 22:14:17
Captain Marvel
I can understand, from your POV, how in retrospect you might not feel comfortable with the decision to let PAD do that gag in CM. But from the reader's perspective, it was hilarious, a really memorable moment, and one of those things that helps repair the cohesiveness of the MU.

One book I do feel goes a bit overboard with this kind of thing is Dan Slott's She-Hulk, but that's more because I feel it goes too far in making the actual "Marvel comics" part of the in-universe story (thus straining suspension of disbelief).

Posted by CylverSaber on 2007-07-07 10:27:58
Lessons Learned
One thing that would be cool to see with these, or after them, is an explanation of what you feel you learned from your mistakes. Personally, I think the most interesting thing with a person's mistakes is how they turn them into strengths later.

For example, do you feel like you let writers get away with less these days because of the Hulk experience? Or is it always a gamble that you hope you win, with how much control you let go?

If you wouldn't mind, it would be fascinating. Thanks.

Posted by PseudoSherlock on 2007-07-07 10:49:11
is the industry big enough?
Tom,
I worry that the comics industry isn't big enough for you to be able to go out there and name names like you do sometimes. Isn't this article going to cause problems with you down the road with John?
Thanks for taking the risks for the readers, though.

Posted by bigdaddyhub2 on 2007-07-07 16:02:44
Writing Mature Characters
There are issues that the presence of writers such as Byrne in the industry raises, such as reliance on retcons to change situations artificially, and insistence on using certain “versions” of characters, but at the moment, one issue is the marriage of characters.

It’s commonly been claimed that marriage is bad for heroes, and children are worse, in terms of storytelling, but the claim is wrong. The attitude seems to be based on the belief that heroes can’t be (shouldn’t be) written as multifaceted characters, with realistic aspirations, and that they have to be written to appeal to younger readers, or readers with immature tastes, who would find heroes involved in long-term relationships boring or otherwise uninteresting.

I don’t believe such readers are worth writing for. If they find married heroes boring, they’re likely to find stories with depth and sophistication, no matter how well written, boring as well. If one such reader stops reading a title after two years, there will be a number of reasons, many unrelated to the quality of the writing.

Marriage and long-term relationships provide more material for a writer to use, not less, if a writer wants to explore a character’s psychological makeup. Principled differences provide the basis for dramatic disagreements, anger, and the possibility of separation, while a series of short-term love interests is mere formula fiction.

One of the best storylines based on principled differences that I’ve seen in a Marvel comic was the split between Mockingbird and Hawkeye in Englehart‘s WEST COAST AVENGERS. Both characters acted as adults in expressing their differences (over her handling of the Phantom Rider); their supporters among the WCA took stands based on their principles. Overall, the psychological treatment of the characters was easily as deep and realistic as in any genre novel I’ve read--and I’ve read over 1,000 books.

Such treatments of characters could be done in other titles, but that would require treating adult women as multifaceted adults, not as plot devices, and a focus on psychology that could be difficult for writers who lack knowledge of human psychology and mainstream fiction.

Mockingbird was the best thing that ever happened to Hawkeye, just as the Vision was the best thing that ever happened to Wanda, and vice versa. The handling of those characters and their relationships by Englehart is evidence that adults and their relationships can be written maturely in Marvel comics, given writing ability and the willingness to work to construct suitable plots. Writers who insist on characters and situations that appeal only to immature and short-term tastes are a detriment to the industry.

SRS


Posted by Steven R. Stahl on 2007-07-07 17:36:46
This post makes me think back to your entry of June 26, about selective continuity. This is exactly why I think fans sometimes engage in that -- we've got two versions of the same story, so which is correct.

As I'm sure you're aware, some runs of a comic simply aren't as good as others. Take, for example, Avengers. Stern's run through much of the 200s was iconic, but after that first Disassembled attempt, it was a disaster for years. Simonson, Nicieza and some of the other folks who wrote the book in that era have put out great comics, but their stints on the Avengers, for various reasons, were bad.

Because of that, if there are conflicting pieces of canon (and I'm not thinking of anything specific from those two eras, just using them as hopefully less controversial examples than modern comics), I think it makes sense that a lot of fans will choose to recognize the aspects coming from generally better eras of the book.

Posted by motteditor on 2007-07-07 18:57:52
You would not be the first.
Back in the late 1990's, I did not buy many of the Marvel Comics titles because they were poorly written, poorly drawn (many of the characters looked so bulkly it wasn't even funny), or poorly edited, so do not feel bad about what you did. I am just glad that you and many of the editors, artists, and writers at Marvel have learned their lesson. I know how hard it is write a good story. I am aspiring to be a comic book writer, but I am so fearful at times that I will never be as good as say Brubaker, Gaiman, and other writers before them. I can imagine that editing is just as difficult. Be glad that you know now what you did not know then.

Posted by rogue3xmen13 on 2007-07-08 13:25:50
Versions of Characters
The subject of “versions” of characters would be worth exploring sometime, since I’ve seen it used as an excuse for mischaracterization. One can’t argue that all versions of a given character are automatically valid; the Byrne-Bendis version of Wanda, to cite one obvious example, is not valid, but the other mainline version is.

All that’s needed to determine whether a version is valid is to analyze the character, see how the characterization relates to the character’s theme, and judge whether any changes in motivations and behavior have a rational basis. A version that is based on a character suddenly acting irrationally is automatically invalid, as are character concepts based only on irrational motivations and behavior (Penance, for example), or on invalid retcons (Bendis‘s version of the Beyonder).

There are characters that exist in multiple versions; Thanos is one example. The multiple versions can’t be justified, though; they arose from Starlin changing his motivations and behavior to conform to the desired plots and supporting characters. Since a fictional character isn’t real, he has to be designed in synch with specific themes and routes of development; otherwise, he’s just a plot device/event generator,

SRS


Posted by Steven R. Stahl on 2007-07-08 15:02:12
David v Byrne
Hmmm, I'm all for a cohesive MU but that joke in Captain Marvel did annoy me as I don't like to see any creator bashed in such a childish way.

Posted by bomaya on 2007-07-09 07:42:45
Normally I'd agree with you but in that instance it really seemed deserved and appropriate.

Posted by IanZL on 2007-07-09 12:49:11
Might be another interesting topic to discuss, Tom: meta commentary in comics. I'm sometimes stunned at what Marvel has let Nicieza in particular get away with -- his final issue of TBolts and a recent issue of C/DP, in particular. I also remember an Evan Skolnick issue of New Warriors, where he has the villain say something like he'd robbed and lied too long to be felled by this, a swipe at Liefeld, right around the Heroes Reborn period.

Posted by motteditor on 2007-07-09 17:23:28
im prob a bit childish
i found the Captain Marvel byrne bash a bit funny.
It just seemed back then Byrne was going around unleashed doing his thing to almost every Marvel Comic. im sorry im just not a fan of most of his stuff.

Posted by c4darkmane on 2007-07-10 10:34:36